Must Watch: Second Trailer for Andrew Stanton's 'John Carter' in HD

Lost in our world, found in another. Disney has debuted the second official trailer for Andrew Stanton's John Carter as its full HD version thanks to IGN (following its premiere on GMA). Adapted from Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, Taylor Kitsch stars as John Carter, a Civil War captain who gets transported to Mars, where he meets Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) and other alien races living on the thriving red planet. It also stars: Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, Mark Strong, Dominic West, Thomas Haden Church, James Purefoy, Samantha Morton and Ciarán Hinds. This is starting to look much better - fire it up!

Watch the second official trailer for Andrew Stanton's John Carter, in HD from IGN/YouTube:

John Carter (of Mars) is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic sci-fi adventures, telling of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Collins). Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands. John Carter is directed by Pixar alum Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) from a screenplay by Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon & Stanton. Disney is bringing John Carter to theaters in 3D eveywhere starting March 9th, 2012 this spring.

Looks promising...
Two major problems with the trailer, though (IMO):
- The green aliens... Poor creature design, looks more like what you would expect in a kids cartoon. Something just seems "off" in them. None of the voice lip syncing seemed to be right either. (although I'm sure they are tweaking that part)
- Starting the trailer with a shot that looks like a ripoff of the "Attack of the Clones" arena scene does not give good vibes. Surely there was some way of making it look more distinctive?
But lots of good things as well:
+ Vehicle and architecture looks alien and interesting
+ Lynn Collins
Overall I am very much looking forward to this. I guess I was hoping for something more exotic looking like "Avatar" - but hopefully the final product will deliver.

Anonymous

please tell me you aren't that stupid...
the source material was written in 1911, long before Lucas was sucking on his mama's teat

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/NI4K7EPTXGNPKJGOBEDOETY6BE Flauer Magen

What has this to do with its actual visualisation one hundred years later? Of course this movie production has others MOVIES as its role model...
But to be true: It looks distinctive from Lucas' arena scene through that it looks good... 😉

001211

Lars - please go back to your Twilight novels.
Sincerely
The World.

Manuel

So... have you thought about George Lucas red the original novel (among tons of other stuff) actually BEFORE Star Wars? Can you imagine the posibility of his genius mind being molded by decades of sci-fi material? George Lucas was inspired by a lot of sh** like John Carter of Mars. Show some respect.

Anonymous

Yep. And so has James Cameron--hell, he even said that AVATAR was sort of a new take on ERB's Mars novels.

@Lars: I suggest you read your Burroughs. That's pretty spot on how he described the Thek in the books.

Anonymous

They are definitely close to Burrough's description. I guess that some changes had to be made, but honestly, I'm fine with them.
They've tried to make a film version of APOM for decades. Now that one
is actually coming out, it's rather sad to see accusations that it ripped off other films whose makers cribbed from the original source material published around 100 years ago.

Doyle

Problem 1. Daytime on Mars is a pink-ish red sky. The sun setting﻿ on Mars makes the sky appear blue until the sun is no longer visible.
Problem 2. Daytime high temperatures on Mars can exceed 100 C. Nighttime lows can go down to -110 C.
Problem 3. Atmospheric thickness on Mars is 1% of Earth's atmospheric thickness.
Imagining this movie is on Mars is like playing Mass Effect without space. They better have good reasons for why there are terrestrial humanoid aliens on an unviable planet; and if explained evolutionarily, why humans still phenotypically look exactly the same as they do today.

Al

Dude, see above, source material written 1911, and its a science FICTION movie, not a documentary

Lars

Its's an adaptation - it *can* change things about the source material, y'know?
If the source material had pink flying unicorns that, would you be upset if they made some change to that detail?

Anonymous

Yeah--although Burroughs did use the scientific knowledge of the day, that has changed over the last 100 years. Still, I don't give a shit if it ignores science fact. It's a pulp adventure story, where you're supposed to be more concerned with the characters instead of running through a science checklist.

001211

I never knew people had been to Mars. What does it usually cost to fly there. You seem to know a lot about it.

Lars

Do we have to be there to know how it looks? You seem to be a person who indulges in ignorance, but let me show you something that just might blow your mind. A two-picture panorama taken on Mars in the last week:
http://www.db-prods.net/marsroversimages/Opportunity/2011/Sol2785-pancam.jpg
Of course films can take liberties. But don't pretend we don't know how Mars looks - we have had many scientific missions land there in the last 30 years, one active rover, and another launched just this last Saturday due to arrive in 9 months.

Anonymous

Aware of these missions, Doyle and Lars, but guess what--Burroughs didn't have that when he wrote the book. And frankly, his description of Mars is based on what was scientifically known at the time--which was via telescope.
You know what he says? Mars (Barsoom) was covered with some sort of soft moss. There were rivers and dry seas on Mars. And so on.
True, they could've used a "modern" interpretation of Mars, but--and I'm making a guess that Doyle has not read the ERB novels--they are following a description of Mars that was NOT a dead world. A dying world, yes, but still blessed with life. Since this story takes place nearly 150 years ago, it's safe to assume that showing the "dead" Mars that we know from nearly 50 years of probe missions is NOT the same Mars that Burroughs wrote about--but you can make the implication that it would later become a "dead" Mars.
I hope this helps, but it seems that some people are searching for scientific accuracy in a story that is essentially a rip-roaring pulp SF adventure, one that is more concerned with characters and action while giving a slight nod to actual science. The problem is that many people today have next to no knowledge of the age of the pulps and what kind of stories were told there.
And I'm eargely waiting for the new rover to touch down on Mars. I just hope it doesn't suffer the fate of the recent Russian attempt.

Manuel

Hey, is your "enter" key stucked or something? I thought people stopped doing that.
I was wrong.

Tunptl

two words. SCIENCE FICTION...that is all =)

Danimal

You must HATE anything with a talking animal in it.

yike$

I hope this doesn't turn into another Prince of Persia (piece of Disney sh**)

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MTEO7RKG3IO7LOJZ3GJJ5NSOOI john s

Am I hearing that soundtrack right? Is that Led Zeppelin's Kashmir? lol.

Moutchy

Indeed it is!

http://www.facebook.com/CineMovie.TV Cine Movie

Better than I imagined. When it comes to Disney adapting a classic serial, you should worry. http://www.cinemovie.tv

Xerxexx

My Dad would be geeking right now!

Anonymous

Xerxexx, I'm just glad that after all of the previous attempts over the years--or rather decades--we're finally getting an actual film version of A PRINCESS OF MARS. I don't care if the title's been changed.
Even went out and bought the omnibus edition of the first three books to read again, since it's been some years since I read the first novel.

Xerxexx

I'll see it for him...he was a big fan. I'll probably go out and buy the first novel before the film drops.

Anonymous

Well, you're in luck, since they did re-issue them not too long ago and even Barnes & Noble has omnibus editions of them.

Gunther101

John Carter. JC? Like Jesus.

Meow

Meh..

Manuel

Is J'onn J'ozz there? With all his family?

dcfan17635

LOL

Xtheory

fair or unfair, the vast majority of moviegoers (who are unfamiliar with burroughs) will dismiss this as an avatar knockoff.
being released in the spring, traditionally a movie waste land period, doesn't help either.

Anonymous

Unfortunately, it's happening already. I hope that it's not that bad, but...honestly, I'm sure many movie critics will also say the same thing.
And you know what sucks? All people have to do is just do some searching to find out all about ERB and his Mars novels. But I guess people just can't seem to do that.

grimjob

That would take effort. Most people would rather hide behind their criticisms without knowing what it is they're actually criticizing than to take the time to educate themselves.

Anonymous

Very sadly true, Grimjob.
Look, I'm not a saint or perfect, but at least I try to give an informed view. There is simply no excuse, especially with the info available at our fingertips, to not run a search on any number of search engines.
If this is an unseen consequence of the Internet Age, we are truly fucked.

grimjob

truly.

Robert

I see this as a mix of Avatar and Star Wars...and why do Martians speak English?

Armeetapus16

All I heard was Kashmir being turned into epic trailer music, also I like the trailer

Guest

Looking at Dejah Thoris's extensive Tattoos it looks like she's a princess of a Trailer Park, not of MArs.

is the plot of the movie just the first book or are they trying to cram multiple books?

Anonymous

I believe that it's primarily the first novel (A PRINCESS OF MARS) with perhaps a few bits from the second.
Then again, they've been attempting to make a film based on A PRINCESS OF MARS for decades. That they've actually done it is worth a small cheer.

Anonymous

The bald guy with bright blue eyes is Matai Shang, a Holy Thern. So if they're staying true to the series, they're delving into the second book.

Shige

I do not know what most of you are excited about because I have never read the book but the trailer looks terrible. Worst is the plastic CGI and overall creature design.

Patryck Boberg

SEems like a really cool flick but this trailer has far too many dips to black.

iyakid

Looks like prince of Persia in star wars...with horrible CGI..

Sota!!

If Avatar and Star Wars had a baby... and that baby was Prince Dastan... and Prince Dastan took a shit - it would be this John Carter (of Mars).
What happened to Disney?

Anonymous

Oh boy. Here we go again.
The only thing I'm going to write is this: Check this link--
http://www.tarzan.com/worlds/barsoom.html
...I'll add this--it seems that one of the great tragedies of the Internet Age is that people seem to have lost the ability to actually go and look something up--you know, research.
And no, running off to Wikipedia doesn't count.

He worked on this? Well, well....loved his designs for the SW prequels.

Blue Silver

The world's first ass-face creature in the movies!

Terry Craig

This looks. so. much. like "Attack of the Clones." With an (uglified, if such a word'd exist) version of the much overused 'Kashmir' playing in the background. And too many cuts to a black screen. Not even gonna try making a witty comment on how amazinly dull the one-liners were.
Only piece of hope is that the character's based on books by the guy who wrote Tarzan. But knowing Disney I don't think it's gonna help.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1523381468 Jon Chamberlain

This looks amazing. I was getting a real sense of a good fantasy film from the 70's/80's. I loved the arrangement of Cashmere by Led Zepplin.

Jpeters1138

DANGIT, Why aren't they advertising this story's pedigree?? Everyone that sees the trailer automatically thinks its a Prince of Persia/Star Wars cross-over because nobody reads anymore. They need to advertise that this IS the space fantasy that inspired all that we love today! Superman, Star Trek, Narnia, and almost every other big name of the genre seems to have taken influence from Princess of Mars. It would be so easy to have just a little message at the beginning or end of the trailers that says where this came from. Otherwise its gonna get dismissed by moviegoers, get a crappy box-office and kill any chance of sequels. I am trying to not get my hopes up, because it could be very mediocre, but I'd still want to see it get a chance at a trilogy and finish bringing it to film once and for all. 90 years is too a long time to wait for a movie to be made but have the series die because people confused it with Episode II.

Anonymous

seconded! you'd rarely have a Dickens, Austen or Shakespeare adaptation trailer without some mention in the first 10 seconds of being 'from the beloved novel by.'
perhaps sci-fi is somehow 'less' literary to some, and i'm not comparing the authors, but i think the marketing team have missed a real trick, here.
kudos to @Scopedog for highlighting the pedigree of A Princess of Mars, but the average movie-goer seeing this trailer probably won't be aware of it. a few seconds at the beginning of the trailer would have not only put the original story in context as the trailblazer it was, but might even have sent them to the seminal source novel.
the film: we'll see. the trailer? a missed opportunity.

Anonymous

Thirded.
"but the average movie-goer seeing this trailer probably won't be aware of it."
And that's the downer. There probably will be an effort to talk about the ERB Mars novels (one hopes), and next year the books are going to be re-issued....but I dunno how you could go about it.
And it's not as if Burroughs is unknown. The man created one of the most famous heroes of all time, Tarzan (along with John Carter, Carson of Venus...) and wrote many books of rip-roaring adventures that influenced many artists, writers and filmmakers.

http://twitter.com/DoctorSubmarine Josh Rosenfield

Even the recent Asylum adaptation had "The Story that Inspired 'Avatar'!" on the cover. And it's not like Cameron could deny it, the stories are nearly identical.

Anonymous

Well, Cameron stated that the ERB novels were among the things that inspired AVATAR. The man was an avid SF reader, and it certainly showed in his films.

Here's my answer, Peter:
http://www.tarzan.com/worlds/barsoom.html
Look, I understand that it is far easier to spew out knee-jerk nonsense, but...I assume you can type "Edgar Rice Burroughs" into a search engine?
And this story IS the Grandaddy of the stuff you panned--after all, it came out nearly 100 years ago, and that is a stone-cold fact.

http://twitter.com/DoctorSubmarine Josh Rosenfield

It doesn't matter if it came out a hundred years ago or yesterday. The movie is coming out in 2012, and it has to hold up to 2012 standards, regardless of the source material.

http://www.newlaunches.com Dhiram

Avatar meets 300 in Tattoine.

rennmaxbeta

At least it's not a direct remake of something. It's the other modern Hollywood "creative" technique: mash up half a dozen hit movies and stick a brand name on it.

Yes, I know all about the John Carter stories. The point is, this movie's visual styling cribs from too many other movies to look original.

Kdkimball

How many different ways must this be explained? Pay attention, please!
Once again: This is the original, the great-granddaddy of 'em all. Without John Carter, there would be no Avatar, no Star Wars (and no Tattoine), etc.
So to Brian, Shige, Iyakid, Sota and the rest, be at least informed in your critiques, please.

Anonymous

Kimball, a very true statement, but let's face it--we could scream until we're blue in the face while giving the details via Powerpoint presentation projected onto a 3D IMAX screen and some of these folks would STILL say the same thing.
The only thing to do is to give an informed opinion and hope it works. But in this day and age, sadly, the uniformed opinion has a whole lot of validity.

rennmaxbeta

Maybe, but over the past 100 years the story is no longer original. It doesn't seem fresh anymore. And Hollywood desperately needs some freshness to its stories.
I'm happy to be proven wrong if this movie turns out to be really great and not a carbon copy of other recent sci-fi/action adventures.

http://twitter.com/DoctorSubmarine Josh Rosenfield

Yes, precisely! A 2012 movie can't be held to 1912 standards. The source material is no excuse for how bad/good the adaptation is.

Pulp Fan

Beware of trolls. Any scif-fi fan should know about these books. I'm all for any sci-fi that's not Star Wars. The Star Wars machine just needs to stop. Lucas has had a straggle-hold on the collective imagination of fandom for far too long. It needs to stop. But it won't. The Lucas Monster is putting out the 3D Phantom Menace in February, just a month before JOHN CARTER debuts. Coincidence? It this f-'ed up world, the masses will see the 3D crapfest Phantom Menace in droves and ignore JOHN CARTER, and it will be 10 more years of Lucas shoveling us Star Wars crap and another generation consumed by it. Long live new ideas (based on original stories) in sci-fi and fantasy. Death to Star Wars, Star Trek, etc (In all honesty, I am a fan of those series, but enough is enough. Give us something new. New Worlds. New Characters. New Mythologies.).

Anonymous

Pulp Fan, solid comment, but...I mean, you could scream this until you're blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter to some.
And even when you do point it out, there will always be some shmendrick claiming, "Uh, it's not original anymore and it's ripping off other Hollywood films!!"
A film "ripping off" films that ripped off (or to put it more nicely, cribbed) the source material for the film...wow. Pretzels have less twists that this dumbshit logic.

http://twitter.com/DoctorSubmarine Josh Rosenfield

How is John Carter original? It's based on a book! At least Phantom Menace was an original story, however awful it was. John Carter might be the best movie ever (though the dialogue in the trailer rivaled Phantom Menace for sheer awfulness) but it will still be another example of Hollywood unoriginality.

Anonymous

Well, hate to break it to you, but a very good chunk of films made by Hollywood over the years--at least since its beginning--have been based on books. Even films that we call classic movies that look like they have original ideas.
So, since it appears that you view JC as "another example of Hollywood originality" because it's based on a book, then I suppose we should blast these films for being the same:
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951)--based on the short story "Farewell to the Master".
BLADE RUNNER (1982)--Based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".
PSYCHO (1960)--Based on the novel by Robert Bloch.
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)--Based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell.
INVASION OF THE BODY SNACTHERS (all versions)--Based on the novel by Jack Finney.
I mean, we can go on with more titles representing Hollywood's lack of "originality".
And since TPM is part of the SW film series, that still means that it took some bits from the original source--the ERB novels. Lucas took concepts and ideas that had been done before (like all artists and writers do) but he put them together in a way that had never been done before. That would be why SW is "original". And this isn't Lucas-bashing, but rather putting out facts.

Pulp Fan

Imagine if all comic books just starred Superman. If all fast food restaurants were McDonald's. I like franchise films, but there reaches a point of complete saturation, absolute over-load. A point where the King of the Hill needs to step aside and loosen its fattened waistband to make room for others. Unfortunately Lucas has roped in a new generation of Star Wars fans with The Clone Wars and those kids will be shoveled regurgitated sci-fi instead to new original ideas. This is being supported by their parents who are actively nostalgic about this property that has strayed so far from its original mythology. Every star wars bedsheet or action figure bought goes to feed Lucasfilm, who has made it its mission to actively squash any new space fantasy. It's a conspiracy! All joking aside, think before you fatten George's wallet. What has the man done to support NEW original sci-fi/fantasy franchises and filmmakers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQoJo81lujk Crapola

I'll be watching it,

Davidbryan949

waiting to be put in the dollar theatre

AJ

It looks like Star Wars and Avatar made a baby.

http://twitter.com/DoctorSubmarine Josh Rosenfield

*yawn* John Carter isn't relevant anymore. Let's make some new sci-fi, that isn't based on century-old books.

Anonymous

Who says he isn't relevant anymore? He certainly was relevant to James Cameron, no?
And while we're at it, let's stop making movies based on Shakespeare, since those are centuries-old plays that are no longer relevant anymore.
Times may change, but some themes are still relevant. And some of our best sci-fi films have come from books that are "old".

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!